The Money Follows the Student... A Really Bad Idea for Taxpayers

There is a compelling need for an educated citizenry.  As such, it is the responsibility of the body public to provide for education services that meets its needs.  Texas does this thru its system of public schools, paid for by Texas and United States taxpayers.

With this tax funding, there are accountability standards in place (fiscal, academic performance, and governance) and safeguards to prevent discrimination, segregation, and exclusion.  All of these benefit the public good and protect the taxpayer.

Having the “money follow the student” circumvents all of the currently afforded standards and safeguards. This is neither logical nor good policy.  Let me illustrate why this is the case.

Assume I’m a parent that wants my child educated in a non-public setting, which is currently (and always has been) a parent’s right.  However, I have decided that the state should pay for my choice by allowing me to take what the state would have spent in the public setting and use those funds to offset the tuition of the private setting.  Sounds fair, doesn’t it? 

Not really...

1. The public school has to meet certification standards for staff. For the taxpayer, this is a good thing.  The private provider is not accountable to staff certification standards.  For the taxpayer, this is a bad thing.

2. The public school has to meet public accounting and financial audit standards. For the taxpayer, this is a good thing.  The private provider is not accountable for meeting public accounting and financial audit standards. For the taxpayer, this is a bad thing.

3. The public school has to follow open meeting and open records standards. For the taxpayer, this is a good thing.  The private provider does not have to follow open meeting and open records standards. For the taxpayer, this is a bad thing.

4. The public school has to meet state academic accreditation and performance standards, for all students. For the taxpayer, this is a good thing.  The private provider is not accountable to state academic accreditation and performance standards.  For the taxpayer, this is a bad thing.

5. The public school cannot discriminate based on creed or nationality.  For the taxpayer, this is a good thing.  The private provider can discriminate based on creed or nationality (thru both official and “soft” entrance requirements).  For the taxpayer, this is a bad thing.

6. The public school cannot segregate based on race or ethnicity. For the taxpayer, this is a good thing.  The private provider can segregate based on race or ethnicity (thru both official and “soft” entrance requirements).  For the taxpayer, this is a bad thing.

7. The public school cannot exclude based on ability, gender or economic status. For the taxpayer, this is a good thing.  The private provider can exclude based ability, gender or economic status.  For the taxpayer, this is a bad thing.

The rebuttal argument is this: “But what about what is best for the parent and the child.  Don’t they matter?” 

To which the answer is, “Yes, as has always been the case, they matter.”

For the parents that believe that public education is unable to provide the level, focus or type of education that they desire for their child there is a remedy. For the parents that prefer a school made up of a specific peer group of their liking, there is a remedy. Those parents can remove their children from the public school setting and enroll them in a private setting more suited to their philosophy, worldview or agenda. That is their right and their privilege. It is their "School Choice."

They just have to pay for it.

For the taxpayer, that is a good thing.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

• Call Jo at (832) 477-LEAD to order your campus set of “The Fundamental 5: The Formula for Quality Instruction.” Individual copies available on Amazon.com!  http://tinyurl.com/Fundamental5 
• Now at the Apple App Store: Fun 5 Timer (Fundamental 5 Delivery Tool); Fun 5 Plans (Fundamental 5 Lesson Plan Tool) 
• Upcoming Presentations: ASCD Annual Conference; TEPSA Summer Conference 
• Follow Sean Cain and LYS on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation  and like Lead Your School on Facebook

A Superintendent Submits... Certification Audit

A LYS Superintendent submits the following:

SC,

This information needs to get out soon. I have yet to find a campus administrator in a small district that knows this information.

Each district or campus needs to do a campus level review of employee certification. Do this in an Excel spreadsheet and update it yearly. The link to SBEC VirtCert is:

http://www.sbec.state.tx.us/sbeconline/virtcert.asp

Most people are familiar with the certification site and use it frequently. Once you have this information, you will need details of teaching assignments, which means master schedules for secondary schools and teaching assignments for elementary schools.

Next, you need the following document:

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5830&menu_id=865&menu_id2=794

Once you arrive at this page, find the link that says Teacher Assignment Chart.

This chart is broken down by grade level: elementary, middle school, and high school. Note that middle schools are further broken down into Self Contained and Departmentalized. My guess is virtually every junior high out there is Departmentalized.

Now, look at the teaching assignment in the left column, and then look at which certificates are valid to teach the listed course. DO NOT DEVIATE. The language on the certificate MUST exactly match the language in the Certification column. Some certificates have very similar wording, but can not be used to teach the exact same subjects.

This process gets tricky because many teachers hold certificates that are no longer available. DO NOT ASSUME that because an old certificate seems very similar to a more currently issued certificate that the two certificates entitle the teachers in question to teach the exact same courses. In many cases this is not true.

For example, there are some older Theater certifications that can be used to teach speech, and there are some more current Theater certifications that may not be eligible to teach speech. If in doubt call SBEC.

Review your teachers for each class they are assigned. If everthing matches up, that's great. If not, develop a corrective action plan and fix it this year. You may find some people need to go take certification tests, so I would do this soon so as to give them time to resolve any problems.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

Call Jo at (832) 477-LEAD to order your campus set of “The Fundamental 5: The Formula for Quality Instruction.” Individual copies available on Amazon.com! http://tinyurl.com/4ydqd4t

Follow Sean Cain and LYS on www.Twitter.com/LYSNation

Attend the LYS presentations at the Texas School Improvement Conference on 10/26/11 and 10/27/11

Confirmed 2012 Presentations: NASSP Conference; NASB Conference

Improving America's Schools - Letter #2, Part 2 (Innovation)

The following post is based on thoughts related to:

Letters to the Editor that the NY Times has recently received concerning public schools. The link is: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/opinion/l17educ.html?emc=eta1

Joanne Yatvin writes, “…if innovation is desirable, all schools should be allowed to innovate, not just charter schools. Why not free public schools from the straitjackets of state textbooks, externally written curriculums and one-size-fits-all instruction?”

I believe that when it comes to innovation, individual campuses can be just as innovative as any charter. And in fact, a number of the constraints that charters don’t have actually makes their job more difficult. For example, not having to hire certified staff and not having maximum class size limits is not a benefit. What charters are good at is trying new things. Regular schools can and do that often. And if I get to pick, I’m going to innovate with a better quality staff.

As for the issue of state textbooks, externally developed curriculum and one size fits all instruction, let me respond to each one separately. First textbooks, this really shouldn’t be an issue. The textbook should be just one of many resources used in a classroom. If the textbook is the only classroom resource that is used, that’s a lazy decision, not a mandated one.

Second, using an externally developed curriculum, again this is not an issue. Teachers need to be provided a common scope and sequence. This creates two powerful benefits. The first is that once teacher don’t have to decide what to teach and when to teach it, they can spend the majority of their time and attention improving the delivery of instruction. And the delivery is where the rubber meets the road in instruction. The second benefit is that the use of a common scope and sequence is the foundation for developing objective instructional data.

The final issue of one size, fits all instruction, is again not an issue. One size fits all instruction is a result of poor support, poor data and poor leadership. With the right tools and leadership focus, any classroom can become more individualized. And again, I would rather attempt this with certified professionals than without.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn…